The PropCo/OpCo Model in School Development Explained

Private investment in international education has grown considerably over the past decade. As schools have become recognised as viable long-term assets, the financial structures used to develop and operate them have grown more sophisticated. One of the most widely adopted approaches in large-scale school development today is the PropCo/OpCo model.

For investors and developers entering the education sector, understanding this structure is not optional. It shapes how capital is deployed, how risk is allocated, how returns are generated, and how schools are positioned for future acquisition or expansion. Getting it right from the outset determines the long-term commercial viability of the project.

What the PropCo/OpCo Model Actually Is

The PropCo/OpCo model divides a school project into two legally separate entities, each with a defined role and a distinct risk and return profile.

The Property Company, or PropCo, owns the physical assets: the land, buildings, and infrastructure. It generates returns primarily through rental or lease income paid by the operating entity. Its risk profile is closer to real estate than to education, which makes it attractive to a different class of investor than the operational side of the business.

The Operating Company, or OpCo, manages everything that happens inside the building. Academic delivery, staffing, curriculum, admissions, financial management, parent relations, and regulatory compliance all sit within the OpCo. Its revenue comes from school fees and, in some markets, government funding. Its risk profile is directly tied to enrolment performance, leadership quality, and educational reputation.

The relationship between the two entities is governed by a long-term lease agreement. The OpCo pays the PropCo a fixed or indexed rental fee in exchange for the right to operate from the PropCo’s premises. That lease is the structural backbone of the entire arrangement and deserves as much legal and commercial attention as any other document in the project.

Why Investors Use This Structure

The PropCo/OpCo model exists because investors in real estate and investors in education operate businesses have different risk appetites, different return expectations, and different time horizons. Separating the two entities allows each to be capitalised, governed, and exited independently.

For property investors, the PropCo offers an infrastructure-style return profile. Once the lease is in place with a creditworthy operating entity, the income is predictable and relatively stable. The asset appreciates over time in line with property values. The investor does not need to understand curriculum frameworks or manage teaching staff. They need to understand the quality and durability of the tenant, which is the OpCo.

For education operators and their investors, the OpCo structure removes the capital burden of property ownership from the operational balance sheet. Instead of tying up capital in land and buildings, the operator can direct resources toward educational quality, marketing, staffing, and growth. The lease cost is a fixed operational expense that can be planned and managed.

For institutional investors evaluating the overall project, the separation creates transparency. Financial performance of the real estate and financial performance of the school can be assessed independently, each against appropriate benchmarks. This clarity reduces perceived risk and can materially improve access to capital.

How the Revenue Model Works

Under a standard PropCo/OpCo arrangement, revenue flows work as follows.

Parents pay school fees to the OpCo. The OpCo uses that revenue to cover operational costs including staff salaries, curriculum resources, marketing, administration, and the lease payment to the PropCo. What remains after those costs is the OpCo’s operating profit, from which investor returns at the OpCo level are generated.

The PropCo receives its lease payment from the OpCo and uses it to service any debt on the property, cover maintenance and capital expenditure, and generate returns for its investors. In a well-structured project, the lease payment is set at a level that is financially sustainable for the OpCo across a realistic enrolment trajectory, not just at full capacity.

This last point is where many projects go wrong. Lease payments set too high relative to the OpCo’s realistic early-year revenues create financial stress before the school has had time to establish itself. A thorough school feasibility study should model the lease payment against conservative enrolment projections across at least a five to ten year horizon before any lease terms are agreed.

Risk Allocation Between PropCo and OpCo

One of the most commercially significant features of the PropCo/OpCo structure is how it allocates risk between the two entities and their respective investors.

The PropCo carries the risks associated with asset ownership: construction cost overruns, property market fluctuations, long-term maintenance obligations, and the risk that the OpCo cannot sustain its lease payments. For this reason, PropCo investors evaluate the creditworthiness and track record of the OpCo with the same rigour they would apply to any commercial tenant.

The OpCo carries the risks associated with running a school: enrolment volatility, leadership performance, regulatory compliance, accreditation requirements, competitive pressure, and reputational risk. These are the risks that most directly affect the school’s ability to generate the revenue needed to meet its lease obligations and deliver returns to its own investors.

Understanding which entity carries which risk is essential before committing capital to either side of the structure. Investors who conflate the two risk profiles consistently make poor capital allocation decisions and build governance structures that are poorly suited to the actual risks they are taking.

Governance in a PropCo/OpCo School Structure

Separating the legal entities does not eliminate the need for aligned governance. In practice, the PropCo and OpCo need governance frameworks that are sufficiently independent to protect each party’s interests yet coordinated enough to ensure the school functions as a coherent institution.

The PropCo board focuses on asset performance, lease compliance, capital maintenance, and long-term property strategy. It does not govern educational delivery.

The OpCo board focuses on educational quality, financial performance against budget, enrolment strategy, leadership accountability, and regulatory compliance. It does not govern property decisions.

Where the two entities share common investors or directors, clear conflict-of-interest protocols are essential. Decisions that affect the lease terms, capital investment in the property, or the financial relationship between the entities must be managed transparently and at arm’s length.

Strong governance at both levels is not an administrative formality. It is a prerequisite for attracting institutional capital and for sustaining the school’s performance over time. The school governance frameworks that underpin both entities need to be designed alongside the legal structure, not retrofitted after the investment is committed.

Understanding how the PropCo/OpCo structure affects valuation is covered in detail in our guide to how to value an international school.

The PropCo/OpCo Model and School Management

In most PropCo/OpCo arrangements, the OpCo either employs a leadership team directly or engages an Education Management Organisation (EMO) to manage the school on its behalf. The EMO takes operational accountability for educational outcomes, staffing, and daily management under a school management contract with the OpCo.

This three-layer structure, PropCo owning the asset, OpCo holding the operating licence, and an EMO managing the school, is increasingly common in markets where investors have capital and development expertise but do not have the educational capability to run a school directly. It allows each party to contribute what they do well while being held accountable for their specific role.

For investors evaluating this structure, the critical question is whether the EMO has the track record, systems, and educational expertise to deliver the enrolment growth and academic standards that underpin the OpCo’s financial performance. The entire investment case rests on the school’s performance. The EMO is the organisation responsible for making that happen.

For a full explanation of how management contracts, management advisory franchises, and brand licence agreements work within structures like this, read our guide to international school franchises.

Common Mistakes in PropCo/OpCo School Projects

Having worked on school development projects across multiple markets, I have found the same structural errors recur with regularity.

Lease payments set without reference to realistic enrolment projections. The most damaging mistake in any PropCo/OpCo structure is a lease that the OpCo cannot sustain through the school’s early years. Projects that fail financially often do so not because the school is failing educationally but because the financial structure was built on optimistic assumptions.

Misaligned investor expectations between PropCo and OpCo. Property investors expect stable, predictable returns from day one. Education investors understand that schools take three to five years to reach financial maturity. When both types of investor are in the same room without a clear understanding of each entity’s return profile, conflict is inevitable.

Inadequate legal separation between entities. In some structures, the formal separation between PropCo and OpCo is nominal rather than real, with shared directors, combined bank accounts, or undocumented intercompany arrangements. This creates legal and governance risks that become acute if either entity faces financial difficulties or if investors seek to exit.

Failure to plan for leadership. The PropCo/OpCo structure solves the capital problem but does not solve the leadership problem. A well-structured school with weak founding leadership will underperform regardless of how elegant the financial model is.

When the PropCo/OpCo Model is the Right Choice

The PropCo/OpCo structure is not the right model for every school project. It adds legal complexity, governance overhead, and intercompany transaction costs that are not justified for smaller or simpler projects.

It becomes the right choice when the project is large enough to benefit from separate capitalisation of the real estate and operational components, when the investor group includes parties with different risk appetites and return expectations, when the project is designed to scale across multiple sites or markets using the OpCo as a replicable operating platform, or when institutional investors require the transparency and financial separation that only a properly structured PropCo/OpCo arrangement can provide.

For investors and developers considering this structure, the school investment process should include a detailed assessment of whether PropCo/OpCo is genuinely appropriate for the project or whether a simpler structure would achieve the same objectives with less complexity.

Understanding the operational model that will sit inside the OpCo, whether full management, advisory franchise, or direct ownership, is as important as the structural decision itself. Our guide to international school franchises covers each option in detail.

For a broader overview of how private equity approaches education investment, including deal structures, returns, and fund vehicles, read our guide to private equity in education.

Building a School That Works for Investors and Students

The PropCo/OpCo model, when properly structured, does something that matters beyond the financial mechanics. It creates the conditions for a school to be both educationally excellent and commercially sustainable. The PropCo has the asset security to invest in quality facilities. The OpCo has an operational focus on investing in great teaching and leadership. Neither is distracted by the other’s problems.

That alignment, capital on one side, educational expertise on the other, is what the best international school investments are built on.

Global Services in Education (GSE) works with investors, developers, and school operators to structure, develop, and manage international school projects across the GCC, Asia-Pacific, Africa, Europe, and the Americas. From initial feasibility through to ongoing school management, GSE provides the education expertise and investment discipline that serious school projects require.

Related Articles

• What is an Education Management Organisation (EMO)?
• What is a School Management Contract?
• International school franchise: how it works and what to expect
• School Governance Structures That Attract Education Investors
• How to Conduct a Feasibility Study for a New School
• Inside the School Investment Process
• Why Most New School Projects Fail Financially

There must be a clear strategy and plan to make a school project investment ready: Learn more

👉 [10 Steps to Setting Up a New School]

---

Meet Our CEO & Education Expert
Greg Parry – International School Leadership Authority

Greg Parry is an international education investor and leadership consultant. He is the Co-Founder and CEO of Global Services in Education, advising on school development, management, and education-focused investment worldwide. His work bridges leadership theory and practical transformation across more than thirty-five countries.

Greg Parry is a renowned global expert in education leadership, having led projects in Australia, the Middle East, the United States, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, and China. His accolades include:

🏆 Minister’s Award for Excellence in School Leadership

🏆 School of Excellence Award for Industry/School Partnerships

🏆 School of Excellence Award for Technology Innovation

🏆 Recognised for Best Global Brand in International Education (2015 & 2016)
With a strong track record in school start-up projects, leadership training, and curriculum development, Greg is a trusted authority in building and managing high-performing international schools.

📩 Contact Greg Parry Directly [Contact Link]

GSE’s Comprehensive School and University Development Services

GSE offers end-to-end solutions tailored for new and existing schools, covering:

School Management & Operations

Strategic Planning & Feasibility Studies, including Financial modelling

Architectural & Interior Conceptual Design

School Resources & ICT Planning

Marketing, Branding & Admissions

Staffing, Recruitment & Training

Curriculum Design & Accreditation Support

School Audits & Action Plans

Let’s Build a World-Class School Together!

Ready to start or improve your school?
Visit www.gsineducation.com to explore how we can help you achieve excellence in international education.